On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul that's nonsense. Read Mike Turner's Rev Mod Phys article. What you propose here is brain dead and leads to nothing. You are way off base here out of touch with what is really going on.
On Oct 20, 2004, at 1:07 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Well, you know my view on all this: it's like rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic.
These anomalies, and the whole question of dark energy, raises serious
questions about the entire empirical foundation of contemporary spacetime
and gravitational physics, IMHO.
To the contrary, Dark Energy is the Gift of the Gods to Man! Thar's Gold in them thar skies Boys! Whoopee. Yeehaw! This is better than the San Francisco Gold Rush! Better than Oil in Iraq for Lone Cheney and the Halliburton Gang from Bushwacko, Texas, home of the Silverado S&L Great Bank Robbery and ENRON. Dark Energy exotic vacuum /\zpf field is the COSMIC OIL FIELD. It's Kip Thorne's "exotic matter" for wormhole star gate time travel and Alcubierre's faster than light warp drive. Where you see dispair and defeat Paul, I see opportunity and victory! Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of The Sarfatti and Make Star Trek Real. Space is the New Frontier. It is our Manifest Destiny Matrix. Go into space-time metric engineering young man if you want to make your fortune. This is the New Futurism.
I would suggest that we are hardly in a position to do "scientific cosmology"
unless we can really claim to understand our most fundamental theories of
space, time, and gravitation, and their empirical motivation.
To the contrary. Precision cosmology is accurate now to ~ 2% and rests on more than 3 independent experimental methods ALL converging to SAME STORY told by
Guv + /\zpf ~ 0
The theory is simple and elegant and all pops out of the Higgs Ocean.
a_p(t) = cH(t)
is very intriguing and the Foucault Pendulum model looks good since it can be tied to Berry Phase hence a topological defect that I guess will be the hedghog - I need to think about that more - still a vague idea.
/\zpf(t,r) = H(t)/cr
with V(t,r)zpf = +cHr
In the hollow halo hedgehog exotic vacuum topological defect centered at Sun starting from r ~ 20 AU out ..
/\zpf(t,r) = 1/LpR(t)r
H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt
V(t,r)zpf = +(c^2/LpR(t))r
Since BOTH Pioneers show same a_P their local spins cannot be important. A rotation of the hollow halo BTW
Let the inhomogeneous rotation rate be f(r) Hz.
Then v(r) ~ f(r)r and the centripetal acceleration is
a(r) = v(r)^2/r = f(r)^2r
f(r)^2 = c^2/\zpf(r) = c^2/(LpR(t)r)
f(r)^2 = cH/r
Note that the tangential flow speed of the exotic vacuum "fluid" is
v(r) ~ r^1/2
Creon Levit wrote:
On Oct 19, 2004, at 5:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK so what does
To produce our anomalous acceleration
even only out to 50 AU would require the total dark
matter to be greater than 3 × 10^−4M
⊙. But this is in
conflict with the accuracy of the ephemeris, which allows
only of order a few times 10^−6M⊙ of dark matter even
within the orbit of Uranus ".
really mean? How far out does this "ephemeris" constraint really extend?
I think it means that if there was enough dark matter distributed as 1/r to explain the PA then planetary motions would not be predictable using the standard post-Newtonian model. But that model explains planetary motions (i.e. produces the ephemerides) with great accuracy.
The authors of gr-qc/0104064 are admirably thorough. Some relevant quotes and references regarding the "ephemeris constraint" are:
are modeled to include the effects of planetary perturbations,
radiation pressure, the interplanetary media,
general relativity, and bias and drift in the Doppler and
range (if available). Planetary coordinates and solar system
masses are obtained using JPL’s Export Planetary
Ephemeris DE405, where DE stands for the Development
Ephemeris. [Earlier in the study, DE200 was used. See
"We include models of precession, nutation, sidereal rotation,
polar motion, tidal effects, and tectonic plates
drift. Model values of the tidal deceleration, nonuniformity
of rotation, polar motion, Love numbers, and Chandler
wobble are obtained observationally, by means of
Lunar and Satellite Laser Ranging (LLR and SLR) techniques
and VLBI. Previously they were combined into
a common publication by either the International Earth
Rotation Service (IERS) or by the United States Naval
Observatory (USNO). Currently this information is provided
by the ICRF. JPL’s Earth Orientation Parameters
(EOP) is a major source contributor to the ICRF.
 E. M. Standish, Jr., X X Newhall, J. G. Williams, and D. K. Yeomans, “Orbital ephemeris of the Sun, Moon, and Planets,” in: Ref. , p. 279. Also see E. M. Standish, Jr. and R. W. Hellings, Icarus 80, 326 (1989).
 E. M. Standish, Jr., X X Newhall, J. G. Williams, and W. M. Folkner, JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemeris, DE403/LE403, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Internal IOM No. 314.10-127 (1995).
 P. K. Seidelmann, ed., Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, 1992).
 P. A. Laing, “Implementation of J2000.0 reference frame in CHASMP,” The Aerospace Corporation’s Internal Memorandum # 91(6703)-1. January 28, 1991.
 E. M. Standish, Astron. Astrophys. 114, 297 (1982)
 We thank E. Myles Standish of JPL, who encouraged us to address in greater detail the nature of the annual/ diurnal terms seen in the Pioneer Doppler residuals. (This work is currently under way.) He also kindly provided us with the accuracies from his internal JPL solar system ephemeris, which is continually under development.
So where do we go from here? Is there any fundamental difference between dark energy and dark matter w.r.t. these counter-arguments from gr-qc/0104064 ?
"We conclude that the Viking ranging data limit any
unmodeled radial acceleration acting on Earth and Mars
to no more than 0.1 × 10−8 cm/s2. Consequently, if the
anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft
is gravitational in origin, it is not universal. That
is, it must affect bodies in the 1000 kg range more than
bodies of planetary size by a factor of 100 or more. This
would be a strange violation of the Principle of Equivalence..."
What's this about "spinning spacecraft"? Huh?
Are the Pioneers rotating about their centers of mass?
Yes, they are spin-stabilized. Relevant quotes from the paper:
"... At launch they were spinning
at approximately 4.28 and 7.8 revolutions per minute
(rpm), respectively, with the spin axes running through
the centers of the dish antennae [HGA]. Their spin-stabilizations
and great distances from the Earth imply a minimum
number of Earth-attitude reorientationmaneuvers are required.
This permits precise acceleration estimations, to
the level of 10−8 cm/s2 (single measurement accuracy averaged
over 5 days). Contrariwise, a Voyager-type three-axis
stabilized spacecraft is not well suited for a precise
celestial mechanics experiment as its numerous attitudecontrol
maneuvers can overwhelm the signal of a small
"The spacecraft is attitude-stabilized by spinning about
an axis which is parallel to the axis of the HGA. The
nominal spin rate for Pioneer 10 is 4.8 rpm. Pioneer 11
spins at approximately 7.8 rpm because a spin-controlling
thruster malfunctioned during the spin-down shortly after
launch. [Because of the danger that the thruster’s
valve would not be able to close again, this particular
thruster has not been used since.]...
"There were no anomalies in the engineering telemetry
from the propulsion system, for either spacecraft, during
any mission phase from launch to termination of the
Pioneer mission in March 1997. From the viewpoint of
mission operations at the NASA/Ames control center,
the propulsion system performed as expected, with no
catastrophic or long-term pressure drops in the propulsion
tank. Except for the above-mentioned Pioneer 11
spin-thruster incident, there was no malfunction of the
propulsion nozzles, which were only opened every few
months by ground command. The fact that pressure was
maintained in the tank has been used to infer that no
impacts by Kuiper belt objects occurred, and a limit has
been placed on the size and density distribution of such
objects , another useful scientific result."